Another Eucharist objection I could use some help answering

[Gorgias]

And I have been trying to avoid the question of John’s literary devices vs. Jesus’ actual words, since I see no historical reason (and no compelling theological reason, though I recognize this is much more open to question given Vatican II’s reaffirmation that the Gospels “tell us what Jesus really said and did”) to think that any part of this discourse tells us Jesus’ actual words.

If you’re willing to abandon the view that the Gospels are accurately recorded, are you at least willing to accept that they’re inspired? That is, would you agree that these words – as recorded in the Gospel of John – are the message that God intended to share with us, as Jesus’ message to us?

From a historical point of view, I’m strongly inclined to view the entire discourse, and pretty much all such discourses in John, as theological interpretations of the significance of Jesus’ life and teaching rather than anything like direct accounts of specific speeches Jesus actually gave.

And, given that they appear in Scripture, are you willing to ascribe any special significance to them, qua Scripture?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Contarini:

I think we have a clearer understanding of just how the Gospels came to be written.

If by clearer, you mean in a more secular non-religious way.

 

[Robyn_p]

Right, and “symbolic” has come to mean “not real.” So why not just say “real”?

Fair enough. I agree that is the better term to use.

Good point that the act of eating is literal. But to say “we literally eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood” gives entirely the wrong impression. At least, unless you really do believe that you are practicing ritual cannibalism with a graceful veil of illusion thrown over it by the mercy of God. I have read popular Catholic accounts of the Eucharist that sound like that, and yes, I know there are some passages from saints and Doctors of the Church that sound a bit like that as well.

No, I don’t believe that. That’s partly why I’m hesitant myself to point non-Catholics to miracles like Lanciano as proof of the Real Presence, since it makes it sound like we believe we are actually eating a piece of Jesus’ heart muscle, which isn’t what the Church teaches at all.

As I see it, the Eucharist breaks down our categories for talking about “physical” and “spiritual,” “literal” and “symbolic.” It’s an invasion from what Jews would call the “World to Come,” in which those distinctions don’t seem to apply (as indicated by Paul’s rich and tantalizing language in 1 Cor. 15 about a “spiritual body”).

And in particular, it can’t be expressed in the language of modern Western rationality. Ancient and medieval physics, with its language of “substance” and “accidents,” could deal with the spiritual aspects of physical reality better than modern language can. That’s why the Church hasn’t yet found a better term than “transubstantiation.”

All true, and I completely agree. The Church calls it ‘‘The Mystery of Faith’’ for a reason, after all. It’s not something we will ever be able to fully grasp or understand, which is awesome to me.

But I guess the question relevant to this thread is: how SHOULD we explain the Eucharist to those who disagree and say Jesus was speaking only symbolically? I’m asking this honestly, as I hate using bad arguments.

Perhaps some day a better term will be found. But many stars will set and come to rest in islands before that day comes. Or to quote from the same section of the same work more precisely, people will have to relearn what they once knew–that the stars themselves are not simply balls of flaming gas. . . .

Edwin

I’m honestly a little embarrassed to say I thought you were paraphrasing Yoda at first. (’‘You must unlearn what you have learned’’)

Shows what type of nerd I am I guess.

 

[Robyn_p]

I’m afraid I don’t view #2 the same as you either. I think Jesus is indeed contrasting the spiritual with the material. Although I may not be understanding exactly what you mean by the “‘spirit vs. flesh’ contrast” Perhaps you are referring to John’s literary device rather than the words of Jesus.

I have a strong feeling you might have misunderstood him. I’m almost certain Edwin was referring to the verse where Jesus says ‘‘it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail’’. He’s saying Jesus is not contrasting the spiritual with the material in that verse (as some Protestants will argue to prove Jesus was speaking symbolically) but contrasting sinful human nature with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I think all of us here agree with that.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I have a strong feeling you might have misunderstood him. I’m almost certain Edwin was referring to the verse where Jesus says ‘‘it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail’’. He’s saying Jesus is not contrasting the spiritual with the material in that verse (as some Protestants will argue to prove Jesus was speaking symbolically) but contrasting sinful human nature with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I think all of us here agree with that.

I’m afraid I really don’t know what Edwin is referring to. However, I do know what I was referring to, and I DID mean what I said: That Jesus is contrasting the spirit vs. the flesh (or the material). IOW, the Jews were understanding this discourse in a carnal manner, and thinking that Jesus was speaking of eating his flesh literally. But Jesus corrects their thinking in two ways; One he asks them “What if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before” John 6:63. And two, he states “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” John 6:64

So first he tells them he will be whole and entire when he ascends to where He was before (not eaten.) And two, he tells them it is NOT the flesh that gives life or nourishes, but the Spirit. So Jesus is contrasting their carnal (or material) understanding with a spiritual one of the command to eat His body and drink His blood.

Jesus doesn’t explain the whole Divine plan for this Sacrament in John 6, of course. The final understanding will be given to the Apostles at the Last Supper. So I believe this was also a test of Faith for the disciples of Jesus. Many of them were not prepared to follow Jesus any more after this discourse (which I believe really happened.)

 

[Contarini]

I have a strong feeling you might have misunderstood him. I’m almost certain Edwin was referring to the verse where Jesus says ‘‘it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail’’. He’s saying Jesus is not contrasting the spiritual with the material in that verse (as some Protestants will argue to prove Jesus was speaking symbolically) but contrasting sinful human nature with the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I think all of us here agree with that.

Yes, that is what I was talking about. Sorry for not being clearer.

Edwin